Mumbai,
Maharashtra:
A new study suggests that proposed changes in the law governing abortion are
not feasible and could hamper access to safe abortion procedures in India. The
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Amendment Bill, 2020 requires every
state and Union Territory to set up a Medical Board to diagnose “substantial
foetal abnormalities” and permit abortions beyond 24 weeks of gestation. But
the research suggests that the added layer of examination will cause critical
delays for women seeking safe abortion services. <o:p></o:p>The
bill is expected to be introduced in the Rajya Sabha in the ongoing Budget
session. It seeks to amend the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971,
which provides the legal framework under which abortion care is provided in
India.<o:p></o:p>The
constitution of Medical Boards is itself unfeasible owing to an acute shortage
of the required qualified doctors in India, the study titled Medical Boards
for Access to Abortion Untenable: Evidence from the Ground found. The
proposed Board will comprise gynaecologists, paediatricians, radiologists or
sonologists. In
the rural parts of north India, the availability of obstetricians and
gynaecologists, paediatricians and radiologists fall short by 84.2%, 68.76% and
74.5% respectively. The rural south fares only slightly better, the study
points out. Talking of state-wise records, scheduled areas in Himachal Pradesh
have a 98% shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists. In the rural areas of
Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, the availability of these specialists is almost nil.
The same is the case all over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Sikkim. <o:p></o:p>Professor
Dipika Jain, the lead author of the study that has been conducted by the Centre
for Justice, Law and Society (CJLS) at Jindal Global Law School, calls these
Medical Boards “draconian and invasive”. She says they strip away autonomy from
the pregnant person, which has been recognised by the Supreme Court in its decisions
in cases like Puttaswamy, Navtej Johar and Joseph Shine. <o:p></o:p>Sanaya,
a 31-year-old from Mumbai who doesn’t have children, also condemned the
idea of “policing a woman’s body, especially of those who may be economically
not on par with the people who are to chair these proposed boards. This
was echoed by Amruta Ghanekar too. She works with an organisation engaged in
the area of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) and feels that
“regulating women's bodies is against their human rights.” Enable
24-week limit for all&nbsp;However,
experts and activists have welcomed two new changes proposed. One, the
provision to let unmarried women cite contraceptive failure as a valid reason
for seeking an abortion. Two, the move to increase the 20-week gestational
limit for abortion to 24 weeks with the approval of two Registered Medical
Practitioners (RMP). <o:p></o:p>Hailing
the revised gestational limit, VS Chandrashekar, CEO of Foundation for
Reproductive Health Services (FRHS) India, says, “By the time they [the
survivors of sexual abuse] realise they are pregnant, seek information and
decide to terminate the pregnancy, they reach 20-24 weeks.” Failing to abort
and going ahead with the pregnancy and birth in these cases takes a toll on
their mental and physical health, says gynaecologist Dr Deepti Gupta from
Bhopal. <div class="embed-container" align="center" style="line-height: 1.4;"><img src="https://assets.ramen.101reporters.com/inpic/2021/2/101RPT857216/check_up.jpg" id="873309" style="width: 100%;"></div>Institutional delays often force women to go through with the birth or seek out unsafe alternatives. Credit: Pixabay <o:p></o:p>Currently,
the recourse for abortions beyond 20 weeks is to file a writ petition in high courts
or the Supreme Court. But the fear of criminal prosecution and confusion around
the legal framework is known to deter doctors from performing abortions even in
permitted instances. A 2019 report by the Pratigya Campaign for Gender Equality
and Safe Abortion found that a notable number (23%) of High Court petitions
(between June 2016 to April 2019) requesting abortions were for pregnancies
below the 20-week limit and/or as a result of rape. <o:p></o:p>The
new limit would lessen the legal burden and allow gynaecologists more time to
assess the foetal abnormalities and take necessary action. “We discover lethal
[foetal] abnormalities at only around 20 weeks,” Dr Gupta explains. <o:p></o:p>Simmi
Somjee, a mother of one from Mumbai, also favoured the 24-week cap. She shared
her reasons with 101Reporters, “The risks to the life of a pregnant
person tends to increase after 24 weeks.” <o:p></o:p>But
the 24-week cap is not without its share of gaps. It applies to a “certain
category of women,” which remains hitherto undefined. Creating distinctions
between women who are allowed abortions at different weeks is a step towards
complicating the law, these experts argue. <o:p></o:p>Other
concerns The
advocacy groups have flagged other loopholes in the Bill. <o:p></o:p>For
instance, if pregnancies need to be terminated under 20 weeks, it would require
the approval of an RMP. This is a step back from the draft Amendment bill of
2014, which proposed that abortions before the 12th week be approved “on the request of a woman.” <o:p></o:p>The
Amendment also makes changes to the privacy clause, under which the particulars
of the pregnant woman must be revealed to “a person authorized in any law for
the time being in force” when the situation demands. Earlier, the person
terminating the pregnancy could divulge the information only if ordered by the
courts but this amendment would enable officials under the PCPNDT Act, POCSO
Act and even the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to access such information. <o:p></o:p>‘Improve
access to abortion’<o:p></o:p> Pointing
to the poor levels of healthcare funding and infrastructure in the country, the
CJLS report recommends that the government return the Bill to the standing
committee for further deliberation on the concerns around access to abortion. <o:p></o:p>Members
of the Pratigya Campaign have made further recommendations: abortions up to 12
weeks should be permitted on the request of the pregnant person; there should
be no upper gestation limit for survivors of sexual abuse; the gestation limit
of 24 weeks should include all pregnant persons and should require the opinion
of only one RMP; the identity of the pregnant person should not be disclosed to
anyone unless ordered by the court. They have also made suggestions to replace
the word ‘abnormalities’ with ‘anomalies’ and ‘woman’ with ‘person’ or
‘pregnant person.’ <o:p></o:p>Institutional
delays often force women to go through with the birth or seek out unsafe alternatives
and they suffer from severe complications such as incomplete abortions,
haemorrhage, infections and infertility, the CJLS study has found. It must be
noted that unsafe abortion procedures are the third leading cause of maternal
deaths in the country, translating to roughly eight deaths daily.<o:p></o:p>

















































Lead pic used for representational purpose only; credit: Pixabay&nbsp; <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">